Chamber and committees

I understand that, but there is a metaphor in that for the fiscal framework as a whole. It is complicated and difficult to get the framework to work in Scotland’s favour, which we have heard from across the chamber during the debate.

VAT being assigned rather than devolved means that, even if the promises of the Smith commission were delivered on, the Scottish Government would not have any direct policy control over VAT. If the framework allowed for VAT to come to the Scottish budget, as it is supposed to, VAT would continue to be collected by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs at UK level, and the amount of tax that would be assigned to Scotland would require to be estimated using a model to be developed by HMRC, the Treasury and the Scottish Government. Liz Smith just made a point about VAT assignment being complex.

Another 15 per cent of the Scottish budget would be based on VAT revenues that were raised in Scotland, but we need to think about that. That would be 15 per cent of the entire Scottish budget, but there would be no control—that is the key point—for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government over the level at which VAT should be set. That illustrates somewhat the difficulty for Scotland of the fiscal framework—the previous version or the revised one.

I remember, some time ago when I was a member of the Finance and Constitution Committee, as it was called in 2016, listening to presentations from experts who were setting out the previous fiscal framework. I understood that the way in which the framework was constructed made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Scotland to succeed under it. I am afraid that nothing that I have heard since then and nothing that I have heard in the debate today has convinced me otherwise.

I will take a little time to talk about the debate. Michael Marra gave a fairly dispiriting speech. However, he made some interesting and important remarks about timing, secrecy and scrutiny of the review process.

I know that we have said that the subject is quite dry, but it is very important to Scotland. Potentially, there should be more involvement by the public, parliamentary committees and experts. That was picked up by Kenny Gibson, who spoke about the need for more involvement by the Scottish Parliament and—I am sure—the committee that he is on.

Michelle Thomson echoed my comments when she spoke about PPP and the poor value for the public purse that it represents, and the fact that, although the UK is now in the privileged position of being able to move away from that model of funding public infrastructure, Scotland is not, and the fiscal framework is locking Scotland into a position in which it must use PPP. That should be of interest to everyone in the chamber.

Ivan McKee spoke about Jim Cuthbert, and referred to Mr Cuthbert’s view that tax cuts are the only way to grow the economy. He admitted that he is not sure whether that is what Mr Cuthbert meant, and I do not believe that it is. I think that, in the relevant comment in his paper, Mr Cuthbert was reflecting the Treasury’s view: the Treasury believes that the only way in which Scotland can minimise economic harm to itself via the fiscal framework is to accept the economic straitjacket that the Conservatives offer Scotland.

In my earlier speech, I focused on my view that, compared with the full flexibility that fiscal autonomy would give us, the fiscal framework review represents a bad deal for Scotland. No amount of tinkering around the edges will change my view on that. I am sure that members on the Scottish Government party’s benches will agree that only with the powers of independence can Scotland truly flourish and grow, and that only with economic separation from Westminster can we ensure that our policy priorities—those of the Scottish people—are matched by the fiscal levers of the Scottish Government. However, we can have those levers, and Scotland can have that power, only by becoming an independent country.

Last year, Scotland’s North Sea sent more than £9 billion of revenue to the UK Treasury, yet it looks as though we are heading towards “Grangemouth no more”. The refinery is of strategic national importance, and the Scottish Government has intervened decisively twice before to help to save the plant—in 2008 and 2013. What are the prospects for its doing so again?

In light of recent reports that the Scottish National Investment Bank is investing in firms that are linked to personnel at the bank, what work is the Scottish Government undertaking to improve transparency at the bank, avoid such conflicts of interest, and meet the high standards that are expected of a public entity?

The First Minister will be aware of the serious fireworks-related disorder in Niddrie a few days ago. Constituents have written to me and told me about how terrified they were during that time. Will the First Minister join me in condemning the violence, particularly the attacks on our emergency services? I stress that incidents such as those should not be used to talk down the communities that I represent.

Does the First Minister agree that a ban on fireworks is possible only with the full powers of independence? Does he agree that the Government should implement the Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 as a matter of urgency? Will he consider additional resources for hotspot areas, such as my constituency of Edinburgh Eastern?

There was the announcement recently of further cost increases, which will be of concern to many people who have been watching the costs increase over the past period. Could you outline the reasons behind this latest increase to costs?

You spoke in your opening statement about material cost rises. Is that due to different materials being required or is it due to inflationary pressures that we see at the moment?

You have a current revised cost estimate and you have a current predicted delivery date. How confident are you that you will meet both of those?

Can you detail what proactive steps you are taking to ensure that any further cost increases will be kept down to an absolute minimum?

You said in your written update and you repeated in your opening statement that the design work is now largely complete. However, you also have a contingency of £30 million at this stage of the project. If the design work is complete, why the need for the £30 million contingency?

Good morning to the panel. I want to pick up on Adrian Gillespie’s point about how we support companies to scale up, because we know that that is an issue. In the recent programme for government, there was an expectation of a greater role for the enterprise agencies in trying to reduce barriers to companies so that we get more successful companies scaling up.